Thank you, Ivan,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:02:54AM +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Thank you for your comment
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010May/0089.html>
> on the RDFa 1.1 drafts.
>
> The issues you raised are simply our mistake. Ie, there is no hidden agenda in not using
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/ in the document, simply our own sloppiness...
>
> The internal draft for RDFa1.1 Core uses http://purl.org/dc/terms/ everywhere now, and
> this will be the case for the published version.
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-rdfa-wg@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether
> or not you are satisfied with the working group's response
> to your comment.
Thank you very much; I am satisfied with the working group's
response to the comment.
I should explain that my comment:
Are there perhaps good reasons to prefer the more lightly
specified /1.1/ namespace for use with RDFa? If so,
should DCMI consider making the case more explicit and
actively promote the use of /1.1/ with RDFa?
was not intended to imply that I thought there might be a
hidden agenda. It was a serious question. When we assigned
ranges to properties in the /terms/ namespace, we assumed that
they were to be preferred to the rangeless /1.1/ properties.
However, we gather that some people see advantages to
rangeless properties in some situations, and I was wondering
whether simple RDFa markup might be one of those situations.
I mention this only in case anyone feels moved to comment.
That the WG has decided to use /terms/ consistently is the
answer I anticipated.
Many thanks,
Tom
--
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>